Farken load of crap, ive been an advocate of open slather for years in all sports. They are never going to eradicate drugs in sport so why waste all this time and money on witch hunts
The only thing that annoys me about this situation is there aren’t any freo supporters at work.
12 months for ACTUALLY taking something that GENUINELY put his health at risk?
Essendon lose coaches, support staff, money, draft picks, plus the mental health aspect, because there is a rumour they may have taken something that may or may not have put health at risk.
Fark him. Saad got 2 years for taking something that did two fifths of ■■■■ all to enhance his performance. Crowley can go fark himself.
Rogue player
Hmmmm…
Apparently it wasn’t a 2 year ban because he thought it was another drug (like panadol).
So they went easy and gave him a 1 year ban.
Amazing…
Edit…
ASADA appears unlikely to appeal the ban, with CEO Ben McDevitt saying in a statement: "We note the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal found Mr Crowley did not intend to violate the World Anti-Doping Code."“This case illustrates the dangers of inadvertent doping. Athletes need to be careful about what they take, even if they don’t intend to cheat.”
Hmmmm..... Apparently it wasn't a 2 year ban because he thought it was another drug (like panadol). So they went easy and gave him a 1 year ban.Amazing…
Edit…
ASADA appears unlikely to appeal the ban, with CEO Ben McDevitt saying in a statement: "We note the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal found Mr Crowley did not intend to violate the World Anti-Doping Code."“This case illustrates the dangers of inadvertent doping. Athletes need to be careful about what they take, even if they don’t intend to cheat.”
Are you sh!tting me?!?!? Where’s this McDevitt been for the last year? This was the same tribunal he trashed as being dishonest when we were fronting up to it!
That quote was straight from the AFL website article.
McDumbo at it again, lol.
A similar situation, not exactly the same because Saad's was a performance enhancer which supposedly gave him an artificial boost to his superman powers on the day, powers mere mortals dont have, aka, cheating.I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
What he gained was the extra masking of high level pain by taking the banned pain killer. The rule is that if the injury was serious enough to require such a strong pain killer to mask the pain, then the injury was severe enough to prevent him playing.This is under the protection of the well being of a player rule. You’re allowed to play under some low level pain as it’s deemed not injurious to health, but obviously more pain means greater injury.
And yes, it does fall in the performance enabling area.
SO why is the substance only banned on match day.
Saad was exactly the same situation.
Crowley’s situation was that his high level of pain was being masked which enabled him to play, thereby potentially aggravating an existing injury. Health and safety etc.
Hmmmm..... Apparently it wasn't a 2 year ban because he thought it was another drug (like panadol). So they went easy and gave him a 1 year ban.Amazing…
Edit…
ASADA appears unlikely to appeal the ban, with CEO Ben McDevitt saying in a statement: "We note the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal found Mr Crowley did not intend to violate the World Anti-Doping Code."“This case illustrates the dangers of inadvertent doping. Athletes need to be careful about what they take, even if they don’t intend to cheat.”
Man, it just sums up this whole situation in a nut shell.
The thing us though they still got the player suspended. There was blood split. That is all they want. Such a farce
A similar situation, not exactly the same because Saad's was a performance enhancer which supposedly gave him an artificial boost to his superman powers on the day, powers mere mortals dont have, aka, cheating.0I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
What he gained was the extra masking of high level pain by taking the banned pain killer. The rule is that if the injury was serious enough to require such a strong pain killer to mask the pain, then the injury was severe enough to prevent him playing.This is under the protection of the well being of a player rule. You’re allowed to play under some low level pain as it’s deemed not injurious to health, but obviously more pain means greater injury.
And yes, it does fall in the performance enabling area.
SO why is the substance only banned on match day.
Saad was exactly the same situation.
Crowley’s situation was that his high level of pain was being masked which enabled him to play, thereby potentially aggravating an existing injury. Health and safety etc.
I understand that’s why Saad got a longer suspension.
But the issue for me is a banned substance should be prohibited 365 days a year.
A similar situation, not exactly the same because Saad's was a performance enhancer which supposedly gave him an artificial boost to his superman powers on the day, powers mere mortals dont have, aka, cheating.0I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
What he gained was the extra masking of high level pain by taking the banned pain killer. The rule is that if the injury was serious enough to require such a strong pain killer to mask the pain, then the injury was severe enough to prevent him playing.This is under the protection of the well being of a player rule. You’re allowed to play under some low level pain as it’s deemed not injurious to health, but obviously more pain means greater injury.
And yes, it does fall in the performance enabling area.
SO why is the substance only banned on match day.
Saad was exactly the same situation.
Crowley’s situation was that his high level of pain was being masked which enabled him to play, thereby potentially aggravating an existing injury. Health and safety etc.
I understand that’s why Saad got a longer suspension.
But the issue for me is a banned substance should be prohibited 365 days a year.
are you suggesting leap year steroid binges?
Bring the game into disrepute, you say?
“Sssssshhhhhhhhhhh.”
Will they pick him, and will the crowd booooo?
No, and yes.
Ryan Crowley delisted by Freo today
WSPHU!
or not.
Meh
A similar situation, not exactly the same because Saad's was a performance enhancer which supposedly gave him an artificial boost to his superman powers on the day, powers mere mortals dont have, aka, cheating.0I think a year is quite a harsh penalty, but only because I don't understand what benefit Crowley actually gained from the substance he tested positive to.If, as a pain killer, it allowed him to play, then it’s in the performance enabling grey area.
If, as a masking agent, it masked something else, then what did it mask, and how did that help him?
I assume we’ll never find out because it doesn’t suit the narrative
What he gained was the extra masking of high level pain by taking the banned pain killer. The rule is that if the injury was serious enough to require such a strong pain killer to mask the pain, then the injury was severe enough to prevent him playing.This is under the protection of the well being of a player rule. You’re allowed to play under some low level pain as it’s deemed not injurious to health, but obviously more pain means greater injury.
And yes, it does fall in the performance enabling area.
SO why is the substance only banned on match day.
Saad was exactly the same situation.
Crowley’s situation was that his high level of pain was being masked which enabled him to play, thereby potentially aggravating an existing injury. Health and safety etc.
I understand that’s why Saad got a longer suspension.
But the issue for me is a banned substance should be prohibited 365 days a year.
It is quite farcical.
Top level weightlifting, track athletes etc may compete once or twice a year - so for them it’s not banned for 363 days and only banned for 2!
For the lols we should get him.
You know, DRUGS